6 ms·

Like so many of this administration's actions, unfortunately...

• crassus_ed 19d ago
  As they said during Louis the 14th's reign: "Si veut le roi, si veut la loi.", which translates to the law wants what the king wants.
  • bsian 19d ago
    In most modern democratic countries (I don't know about the US, since I'm European) executive and legislative branches are one and the same, so that still holds up!
    • lukan 19d ago
      Can you name some examples?
      • bsian 19d ago
        All parliamentary democracies. If you have the majority, you can’t even be removed through a vote of no confidence.
        • rootusrootus 19d ago
          But you have a head of state who can, in theory, remove the head of government at their own discretion, right? In the US the head of state and the head of government are the same person.
          • wasabi991011 19d ago
            Yes in theory, the King Charles III and/or his representative the Governor General, could remove the Prime Minister, though the Governor General is chosen following advice (i.e. choice) of the Prime Minister, so I can't imagine that happening in practice.
            • penteract 19d ago
              There has been an instance of a Governor General dismissing a Prime minister. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
          • bsian 19d ago
            A king could… but that’s never going to happen.
          • rithdmc 19d ago
            Speaking for, and possibly misunderstanding, the situation in Ireland: > But you have a head of state Yes! Our president. > who can, in theory, remove the head of government at their own discretion Ah. No.
          • carefulfungi 19d ago
            The US president is head of the executive branch, one co-equal third of the entire government, also including the courts (article III of the constitution), and congress (article I).
        • lukan 19d ago
          "executive and legislative branches are one and the same" That was the claim. I know in theory it is different, but also in reality here in germany I remember a scandal, where a minister of transport stopped a rule breaking other driver - big problem for the minister, because he was not allowed to do so (we have nice german word of "Amtsanmaßung" for this). So that sounds pretty separated to me.
    • georgemcbay 19d ago
      > In most modern democratic countries (I don't know about the US, since I'm European) executive and legislative branches are one and the same, so that still holds up! In the US we have had legitimate separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches through much of our history and some of my lifetime (I'm almost 53). We don't anymore. The Republican-majority Congress has completely abdicated all of its power to the Republican executive and the Republican-majority Supreme Court barely tries to act like it is non-partisan anymore. The non-Supreme Court judicial system is still (as can been seen by this ruling) functioning as intended, but there's a limit to how helpful that is when the top court is clearly in the bag, and if the other systems of checks and balances aren't repaired quickly it is only a matter of time until enough hyper partisan judges are installed at the lower levels to end that too. The beginnings of the crumbling of our checks and balances pre-date the Trump era, though they've accelerated greatly during the Trump era. Even before Trump Congress had abdicated much of its power in matters of declaring war, for example.